,,,,,,,,,,,Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought that Hal Holbrook's
Mark Twain, while one of the most wonderful stage creations of my lifetime,
smacked of "fictional".  (I leave out "uncomfortably inappropriate" because
I don't think that phrase remotely applies to Holbrook's presentation.

But Holbrook has consistently presented a Mark Twain on stage who, unless I
am badly mistaken, is quite a bit older than any Mark Twain Samuel Clemens
ever presented on a stage for a paying audience.  Holbrook presents the
fiction that - once again, unless I am mistaken - the much older, white
suited Mark Twain ever lectured for pay.  I don't think he did.  I think he
was pretty much out of the lecture business years before he ever adopted the
white suit and before he took on the appearance of age that  Holbrook has
always presented. 

Personally, I've always wished for a Mark Twain who is not the white-haired
old philosopher, but rather the guy in his 30s and 40s who was learning to
enthrall and captivate audiences with his stories, manners, and killer
instincts.  I've always found the young Mark Twain much more interesting
than the old Mark Twain.

That's not a slam against Hal Holbrook, whose creation is a masterful piece
of theater I've enjoyed in person at least three times since 1972 or so.
And it's not a slam against Kilmer, whose Twain (from what I've seen of it
on YouTube) probably needs to age and mature as an act of theater.  But both
are "fictional" in that they present a Mark Twain who never really was.

But it's theater!  So what am I talking about?  It's like not expecting an
autobiography to be fictional.

Regards,

Carl 
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Twain Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Kitty
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brief Movie Review

With due respect for your autobiography-based knowledge of Holbrook, which
i= s inarguable, you are comparing different art forms. I do not make the
asser= tion based on an autobiography; rather from 50 years of stage and
on-camera e= xperience. I am also in agreement with the assessment that
Kilmer's less-tha= n a decade of experience as Twain does not hold a candle
to Holbrook - and I=  can only go back to his 1967 tour de force - on stage
and film. By then, th= e latter had already amassed a lengthy stage record
as Twain (and others).=20=


I don't know Kilmer's stage credits. I do know that his Christian Science
pi= ece would be colored by his affiliation. I also enjoyed Kilmer's varied
film=  roles. ( I've watched Tombstone several times only because of his Doc
Holli= day. The rest is so bad from so many perspectives, It's continuity is
so bad= , it's like finding Waldo.)

Now I'm going out on a limb here by suggesting that Holbrook won't live
fore= ver, and Kilmer has said he wants to be the Twain of his generation.
He has a=  long way to go, but he seems committed. I have had similar
thoughts about m= y own Twain work, as have others.=20

I think the important thing is that Twain's work continues to be passed
alon= g to new generations in as many ways as the world will tolerate. Even
portra= yals of Twain as troubadour have a place - although many would
consider that=  an uncomfortably inappropriate fictional one.

Think of it as more work for scholars to sort out -- a twisted form of job
s=
ecurity.=20

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:33 PM, Clay Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>=20
> I'm reading Holbrook's autobiography now; thus, I differ with that 
>asserti=
o=3D
> n, because Holbrook had years of stage experience before "becoming" 
> Mark T=
w=3D
> ain.
> If anything, Kilmer is a cub in comparison to Mr. H.=3DC2=3DA0- B. 
> Clay Sh=
annon
>=20
>      From: Alan Kitty <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2016 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Brief Movie Review
>  =3D20
> ... or it is an early interpretation of Twain's reported slow drawl 
>delive=
r=3D
> y=3D3D
> .
> I submit that Holbrook might have had a similar interpretation in 
> 1954. IH=
e=3D
> M=3D3D
> AY NOT HAVE BEEN AS GOOD, since Kilmer's film experience when he 
> started d=
o=3D
> i=3D3D
> ng Twain was deep and Holbrook's was not  AK  Sent from my iPhone
>=20
>> On Dec 2, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Scott Holmes <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> =3D3D20
>> For whatever it's worth, Kilmer was a great Doc Holliday, in an 
>> otherwise ridiculous movie.=3DC2=3DA0 I've seen a couple of clips of 
>> Kilm=
er a=3D
> s
>> Twain and they all seemed to represent Twain as a drunkard.
>=20
>=20
>  =3D20